Successive generations have spurned opportunities to make Britain’s railways cleaner and more efficient by investing in a rolling programme of main line electrification. Ben Jones looks at how the situation could be changed.
In 1841, just 11 years after Robert Stephenson’s iconic Rocket triumphed at the Rainhill trials, Scottish inventor Robert Davidson built Galvani, the world’s first electrically powered rail vehicle.
Based on a model produced four years earlier, it was exhibited in London and tested on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
However, with a maximum speed of just 4mph and batteries that couldn’t be recharged, it didn’t impress the railway’s management sufficiently to warrant further development. Setting the template for British scepticism about the benefits of electric traction, it took another 50 years for the value of Davidson’s invention to be recognised.
Following Werner von Siemens’ successful development of electric traction supplied from an external power source in 1879 (demonstrated at Crystal Palace in 1881-82), the 1880s saw the first commercial electric railways open to the public: Volk’s Electric Railway in Brighton and the Giant’s Causeway and Bessbrook and Newry tramways in Northern Ireland.
More minor railways and electric tramways followed, but in the following decade attention turned to a new generation of urban railways - both underground and elevated above city streets choked with traffic.
By the end of 1900, the British Isles (including Ireland and the Isle of Man) had 55 miles of electrified minor railways, 19 miles of urban railways, and 348 miles of electric tramway.
By 1904, a wealthy, confident and industrially dominant Britain was one of several countries at the forefront of railway electrification, although commercial use was already falling well behind Germany and the USA.
That year, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and North Eastern Railway (NER) began electric operation on commuter lines in Lancashire and Newcastle, while there was also the introduction of the Metropolitan Railway’s legendary 600V DC third-rail Bo-Bo locomotives.
Over the next decade, the development of higher-voltage equipment created opportunities for heavier and more long-distance main line electrification.
As with many new technologies, the early years of railway electrification were characterised by widely differing opinions on how it should be achieved and a plethora of competing systems, primarily direct current (DC) supplied by a ground-level third/fourth rail or overhead wires, single-phase alternating current (AC,) and three-phase AC.
The latter was considered but never used in Britain, while the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LBSCR) chose 6,700V single-phase AC overhead to replace steam on its suburban lines in south London from 1909, and the Midland Railway tested 6,600V AC overhead on the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham line as a precursor to the proposed electrification of its Derby-Manchester line.
The London and North Western Railway used London Underground’s four-rail DC supply for its suburban lines in north and west London, while the London and South Western Railway opted for a 660V DC third-rail system that is still the standard equipment south of the River Thames, albeit uprated to 750V.
Meanwhile, the NER adopted a heavy-duty 1.5kV DC overhead system for intensive coal traffic between Newport and Shildon in County Durham, and advanced plans to electrify its York-Newcastle main line at the same voltage.
After the First World War, concerns grew about the multiplicity of electrification systems, and between 1921 and 1932, three independent committee reports eventually narrowed the field to two standard systems to facilitate more efficient inter-operation: 1.5kV DC overhead and 750V DC third/fourth-rail.
The case for suburban electrification - already proven by this stage - was established by the Weir Committee’s 1931 report on main line electrification, set up by the Ministry of Transport.
However, the same report also provided an early example of official reticence to support wider main line electrification.
While numerous European countries (not least Germany, France, Switzerland and Italy) embarked on nationwide electrification programmes, the Weir Committee declared itself unable to quantify the benefits and economic returns of a similar programme for the British network.
Even if the report had come to a bolder conclusion, three of the ‘Big Four’ railway companies were less than enthusiastic about investing in electric traction, the honourable exception being the Southern Railway.
The management of the LMS, LNER and GWR were convinced that steam traction remained superior, and (perhaps more significantly) they were not in a position to invest heavily in expensive new equipment in the tough economic climate of the 1930s.
Steam traction was comparatively cheap to build and maintain. And with Britain sitting on apparently inexhaustible reserves of coal, engineers such as Sir Nigel Gresley of the LNER and Sir William Stanier of the LMS believed that steam still had untapped potential - as evidenced by their streamlined express trains of the late 1930s.
Main line electrification of Britain’s busiest trunk routes remained a distant prospect, even as it became strongly established elsewhere in Europe. Even so, the LMS and LNER extended suburban electrification around Merseyside and Newcastle before the intervention of the Second World War.
Two more major schemes - the LNER’s Liverpool Street-Shenfield suburban line and Manchester-Sheffield-Wath (MSW) Woodhead route - had to be deferred and were eventually completed by the fledgling British Railways after nationalisation.
With a couple of exceptions, electrification plans generally focused on commuter traffic, to the detriment of freight, where major gains could have been made. That bias persists today, where freight is often an afterthought.
In 1948, the British Transport Commission (BTC) inherited 1,048 route miles of electrified railway (on a total network of 19,639 miles) and quickly set up its own Committee on Railway Electrification.
Reporting in 1951, it endorsed the conclusions of 1928’s Pringle Report in supporting 1.5kV DC overhead as the primary system for main line railways.
That certainty would last less than five years. Almost exactly 70 years ago, on June 3 1954, Britain’s first all-electric main line celebrated its official opening with a ceremony at the western end of Woodhead Tunnel.
But far from being the precursor to the expected electrification of other major routes, the 1.5kV DC MSW system was already obsolete.
Tragically, this would contribute to its decline, which started just 15 years later with the withdrawal of passenger services and concluded with its closure in July 1981.
Greater efficiency
By the time the BTC published its Modernisation Plan in 1955, 1.5kV DC had been usurped by the emerging 25kV AC 50Hz overhead system, pioneered in France after the Second World War.
Taking advantage of a nationalised and unified National Grid (adopted from 1929), 25kV AC offered much greater efficiency, lower transmission losses, and lower fixed costs than the expensive, heavyweight equipment required for 1.5kV DC.
After initial experiments in the early 20th century, Germany, Austria and Switzerland settled on high-voltage AC systems early and stuck with them. Italy initially favoured a three-phase AC system developed in Hungary, but switched to simpler and cheaper 3kV DC from 1927 onwards. The final three-phase lines weren’t converted to 3kV until 1976.
Despite having an extensive 1.5kV DC network in the southern half of the country, France could not ignore the benefits of 25kV AC. It switched to the new system from the early 1950s and is still dealing with the legacy of a national network split broadly between DC supply across the south and AC in the north and east.
Switzerland’s Alpine topography was a defining factor in its pioneering role in railway electrification. The Alps were an enormous challenge to railway builders and operators, especially given the relatively low power of steam locomotives in the late 19th and early 20th century. A lack of domestic coal also made them expensive to operate.
Fortunately, the mountains were also the source of abundant hydro-electric power, which supplied (and still meets) Swiss railways’ requirements.
Electrification was, in contemporary terms, a no-brainer for Switzerland and its Alpine neighbours. Since the 1960s, Switzerland’s railways have been virtually 100% electrified.
The case was much less clear-cut for Britain, with its powerful coal industry, reluctance to move away from simple, cheap and proven steam locomotives, and nervousness about the high capital expenditure cost of electric railways.
Taken as an average across the EU, 56.1% of the total network is electrified, with Belgium leading the way at 86.6%, Sweden, Bulgaria and the Netherlands at around 75%, Italy at 72%, France at 59.3% and Germany slightly below average at 53%. In 2022, the EU had 115,000km (71,457 miles) of electrified railways, up by 31% since 1990.
The global average in 2024 is 47%, with the UK trailing at just 37.7% (3,769 route miles), although 70% of trains are electric. The opening of Crossrail and Transport for London’s Barking Riverside branch added 38.6 miles (62.2km) of new electric railway in 2022-23, but otherwise progress has been painfully slow over recent decades.
Proposals and problems
Central to the BTC’s £1,240 million, 15-year Modernisation Plan of 1955 was a massive programme of electrification covering some of the country’s most intensively used railways - including 820 miles of trunk routes from London to Ipswich, the East Coast Main Line to Yorkshire, the West Coast Main Line, and branches between London, the West Midlands and north-west England.
A further 400 route miles were proposed for Glasgow’s suburban network, the remainder of the Liverpool Street commuter lines, and the London, Tilbury and Southend (LTS) and Great Northern suburban lines. South of the Thames, the Kent Coast electrification scheme would add a further 250 route miles of 750V DC third-rail.
Large chunks of the country benefited from the introduction of electric services in Kent, Glasgow and on the WCML and GE/LTS routes in the late 1950s and 1960s, aided by the more favourable economics of the 25kV AC system.
Steam locomotives and filthy, obsolete compartment coaches - many of them predating the grouping of 1923 - were replaced by clean, modern, efficient electric trains such as Glasgow’s ‘Blue Trains’.
The so-called ‘Sparks Effect’ brought passengers flocking back to the modernised services, encouraged by faster, cleaner and more comfortable journeys.
And yet, despite the roaring success of the electrification schemes completed by BR between 1955 and 1974, the expected rolling programme of extensions never materialised.
In common with much of the 1955 plan, changing political and economic circumstances compromised the delivery of the proposed schemes. Worsening performance and an annual deficit reaching £100 million led to the dismantling of the carefully considered Modernisation Plan - and arguably Britain’s best chance to go electric.
Rather than seizing the opportunity for an orderly transition from steam to electric, with diesel traction acting as a stopgap (as seen in France and Germany), Britain launched into a poorly executed dash for diesel after 1957, baking in higher energy costs and lower efficiency for generations to come. The result was numerous embarrassingly poor diesel locomotive designs, condemning 999 nearly new BR Standard steam locomotives to very short lives.
It would take until 1976 for electric trains to commence on Great Northern suburban lines, while East Coast Main Line and Great Eastern Main Line electrification wasn’t delivered until the second half of the 1980s.
Progress in England and Wales has since been piecemeal and frequently frustrating, characterised by a ‘feast and famine’ cycle that resulted in valuable experience and skills drifting away after the end of each major project, driving up costs to the extent that political support for electrification collapsed.
This has been especially apparent since the curtailment in 2015 of the Great Western Electrification Programme (GWEP), which ran late and hugely over budget.
As a result, the GW wires never reached Bristol, Swansea or Oxford as planned, and Midland Main Line electrification was restricted to Bedford-Corby/Market Harborough, denying the East Midlands and South Yorkshire the opportunity to benefit.
Official antipathy towards fixed electrification arguably peaked with the controversial decision to downgrade East West Rail to a diesel-only route in October 2016.
It’s difficult to think of any other country in the world with a highly developed rail network that is building new unelectrified railways on the scale of EWR.
Scotland has, of course, taken a more proactive approach, steadily extending electrification across much of the Central Belt and closing gaps to eliminate diesel operation wherever possible - with the regrettable exception of the reopened Borders Railway.
Transport Scotland has ambitious plans to decarbonise rail over the next two decades with a mix of electrification between its major cities, supported by hybrid, battery and (possibly) hydrogen trains on rural routes.
While other modes tussle with the myriad challenges of transitioning to new sources of energy (all of which have their own drawbacks), and unproven ‘solutions’ such as Hyperloop are consigned to the dustbin of history, rail offers a ready-made solution that has been in widespread use for more than 120 years.
As we look towards a new government and a new era under Great British Railways (GBR), many hope to see a renewed focus on electrification. Earlier this year, the Conservative government announced plans to increase the electrified network from 38% to 51%, taking into account previously announced schemes such as the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU).
A Railway Industry Association (RIA) strategy document published in April goes beyond that, outlining how a further 15% of the network could be electrified in a co-ordinated, economical and sustainable fashion. RIA says its strategy offers a template towards what it believes will be a ‘lower cost, higher performing net zero railway by 2050’.
The plan focuses on opportunities for carbon reduction and air-quality improvements in the short term, enhancing performance with newer and more reliable trains while achieving lower costs and greater economic benefits by reducing ‘boom and bust’ for the rail-supply sector.
It envisages that 100% of passenger services and 95% of freight services could be decarbonised incrementally by 2050 using a mix of fixed electrification and battery trains.
According to RIA research, one-third of the network (34%) wouldn’t require fixed electrification and could be decarbonised rapidly by replacing life-expired diesel units with battery-electric trains. This is already the direction of travel identified by Northern, GWR, ScotRail and Transport for Wales as they work towards replacing their Class 15x/16x/17x DMU fleets.
Creating a long-term national rolling stock strategy would need to go hand in hand with nationwide electrification plans to establish a credible, deliverable programme of decarbonisation for both passenger and freight traffic. It would also provide a basis for suppliers to move away from the destructive ‘feast and famine’ cycle that has played havoc with the British train-building industry over many decades.
Rail reform as set out by the new Labour Government should create a role for Great British Railways to consider long-term rolling stock requirements and the sustainability of the supply chain, including the kind of large framework orders now common elsewhere in Europe.
This would provide a smoother and more stable pipeline of orders, allowing suppliers to make long-term plans and reduce costs.
RIA is also calling for a cross-industry group to further develop and test its strategy and confirm the minimum additional electrification to deliver net zero for passengers and freight by 2050. This ‘rail plan’ should be published to provide clarity to railway planners and investors.
While Network Rail and its suppliers have spent the past few years testing various ideas for reducing the costs of fixed electrification (a response to the shock of GWEP), industry experts agree that the most reliable way to keep costs in check is to have a stable, long-term programme of electrification that builds and retains the skills and experience necessary to deliver it effectively.
Traditionally, the social and economic benefits of rail electrification have been underplayed when building a business case for British projects. But these extend far beyond the obvious improvements in capacity and speed or reducing our dependence on imported fuel.
Rail is the only mode capable of shifting freight and passengers at the speeds and in the volumes required to maintain and enhance our mobility, while at the same time dramatically cutting our carbon emissions and the pollution caused by (largely) fossil fuel-powered road vehicles and aircraft.
At some point, the UK will need to grasp the nettle and invest in rail electrification if it is to meet its international commitments - and start to reduce the yawning inequality between London and the rest of the country.
After decades of false dawns, the impending creation of Great British Railways, dovetailing with a new government and a need to address the climate crisis much more seriously, offers a new opportunity to create a viable plan for electrifying more of the British rail network.
For a full version of this article with more images and data, Subscribe today and never miss an issue of RAIL. With a Print + Digital subscription, you’ll get each issue delivered to your door for FREE (UK only). Plus, enjoy an exclusive monthly e-newsletter from the Editor, rewards, discounts and prizes, AND full access to the latest and previous issues via the app.
Comment as guest
Comments
No comments have been made yet.